P-47 Range Debate, Live Chat Answers
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 июн 2024
- During the P-47 range debate with the great Bill Marshall, I couldn't even see all the questions in live chat, let alone answer them, so this is my attempt to rectify that. There were over 500 of them, I'll address about 100 of them here.
Please Consider Joining my Patreon
/ gregsairplanesandautom...
Paypal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com
Links:
Range Video
• P-47 Thunderbolt Pt. 6...
The Debate
ruclips.net/user/liveqzrg-u-M... 
Авто/Мото
![PADDINGTON IN PERU - Official Trailer [4K] - Paddington Bear is back!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lKgitu25ZAg/mqdefault.jpg)
Only suggestion I have for any more in this series is skip the "noise" comments entirely. Only read the ones which you can answer.
This 💯%
Would love to see you do more of these addressing actual questions from the debate.
Any complaints about the technical issues or comments with no context are just noise at this point and can be filtered out.
^ Second!
Agreed! And, I was assuming you might group like comments or comments that could be responded to with one answer so as not to have to repeat yourself several times through the video.
The P-47 Thunderbolt was the greatest fighter because it got Dad home!
Thanks to everyone who participated in the attempt at the video discussion. Technical discontinuity
" took the shine" off the event. I agree with most all Your contentions Gregg about the Army Air Corps misuse of their aircraft.
As You know, the Casper Army Airbase was the last training station for B17 crews before being sent to Europe. My family has a homesteaded ranch that borders the air base property, when the heavily fuel ladened aircraft left for europe the flight path was right over Grandma's house and She told of hanging laundry on the clothes-line and being able to distinctly see the aircrew men's faces.
The point of this story, the air crews had definite opinions about bomber operations in Europe as they were the immediate replacement for the men raining from the sky. One gentleman said that when he left it was " like being thrown to the wolves ", that is the sort of faith they had in unescorted missions.
I was born in '52 so i got to hear first hand stories from those that would speak of it.
I asked Grandma one time if She waved from Her clothes-line to the men in those aircraft.
" No honey, all i could do is stand there and cry. "
Best Wishes to You and Your Family.
Chris Fahey here. Yep, most of the airplanes mostly fighters. A lot of P-38, F4U, P-51, F-86, MiG 15, much less in the Spitfire, SBD, AD, etc. Now Delta 350 and former F-16. No, I’ve not flown our P-47G, darn…. I sure want to. O’Malley one of the 5 P-38 guys. I’d love to sit down and flight plan with ya some missions some day. the big problem with the small fuel tank P-47 at least as I’ve flight planned it, is internal fuel determines combat radius. That column V in the range charts is basically low altitude “Lindbergh” technique flying. You bet, October 43 the 56th was going to Frankfurt, and March 6th they were 50 miles west of Berlin and scored heavily. Ya March 3rd Berlin, while the 55th was over Berlin, as was the 354th 9th AF P-51s. BUT!!! Awesome for you both to do this. Talks like this are VERY important to the history of the men and machines presented. MUCH thanks to you and Bill! Hopefully there will be more!!! Thank you!!
Thanks Chris.
Man Chris I wish I could sit down and pick your brain lol.
Wow, Greg, thanks for the shout out. I didn’t know you watched my channel. I still think your video on the F4U Corsair is one of the best things I have ever seen on RUclips. I regret that I forget what I was referring to but I think it was someone’s comment, not anything you two said. Probably in response to something someone said about why bigger drop tanks or drop tank racks were not integral to the early versions of American fighters or why they weren’t designed with longer range or something along those lines.
Thanks, Max, yes I do watch your channel. It's good to hear you're still flying. I have 7 years left myself, if I keep passing the medical.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I hear ya brother!
The "bureaucratic skill" assertion was diplomatic genius!
The point on documents is very important. In working for a multinational, I learned that what gets documented is often not what has been done. The people who generate documentation are covering themselves every step of the way. Another word for documents is "evidence." And when people don't want to leave evidence of what actually went on...
Thanks, that's a very good post.
Well said. The minutes of meetings are controlled, creatively paraphrased and modified at the higher levels. CYA.
The "Primacy of Primary Sources" dilemma.
"The cleanest ass uses the most paper" as my grandfather would say
@@ivanthemadvandal8435 😁
@23:41, a small but perhaps semi-important point is to recall that the Brits didn’t ask NA to create a new fighter. They asked NA to build P-40s, and NA instead countered with the ‘51 concept…to which the Brits agreed.
Not exactly, there was collaboration between NAA and RAE/BPC starting in 1939 and the final result was based on operational requirements from the British.
@@bobsakamanos4469Well, yes, but that more applies to things like armament. The basic structure, airframe and engine were all NAA, and was not a collab with the British.
@@cfzippo it depends on how you define collaboration. Operational requirements and responses to them require a lot of back-and-forth which some might term collaboration even if the customer isn't (literally) involved in the nuts and bolts.
As an aside, the P-61 was also originally a British requirement and Gloster or Boulton Paul had a prior outline design of something that looked very similar, as far as scale models but not detailed mock ups.
The UK was sourcing military equipment from wherever it could, 1939-41.
@@cfzippo The requirements were British, Chris. Kindelberger had already been to England and other countries in 1938. NAA started to meet their requirements with a more lightweight fighter in 1939 with the P-500 and P-509, but once it became apparent that longer range would be necessary the Brits provided the newer op requirements in Jan 1940.
Backtracking on the timeline, Schmued revealed decades later that he'd been working the design since he read Meredith's paper in ~ 1935. The wing of course was NACA inspired (1938) and developed at GALCIT and Millikan studies/reported to Gen Arnold about Schmued's high speed fighter design in 1938. NAA dissected a 109B in 1939 for lessons learned, so yes NAA had been beavering away for some time, but it was the Brit Op Requirement that changed the P-509 to the larger Mustang prototype with much more internal fuel. Further mods were helped along by Shenstone ref the radiator duct boundary layer.
@@bobsakamanos4469 No that is false. It was the BPC which approached NAA If Supermarine were having trouble getting backing for their Spitfire why would an American company get a leg up.
I think this sort of video is a fantastic idea. You could probably streamline it a bit just with a bit of prep-work though by reading through the comments first, filtering out filler, and then making bullet points of questions being asked - many topics were brought up more than once and you could avoid duplication that way. I really hope to see you address some of the things that were talked about later in the comments. Thanks - I really enjoyed the debate and all your content.
"Drop tank gap!" Yes, I think most of us understood that reference. How about our precious internal fuels?
DrOPE tank?
Only with Sterling Hayden chomping on a cigar
Precious internal fuels!! Yes!! Purity Of Essential fuels!!
Im curious to see the replies after Bill refused to entertain the idea that an Army officer would lie or conceal the truth.
No disrespect to the man as I admire him taking up the debate but his response to that question really disappointed me.
All you have to do is look into the "flight to nowhere" episode at the Battle of Midway to see pretty plain evidence of multiple US Navy officers lying in multiple interesting ways, and realize there's no reason to believe US Army officers have any more inherent integrity. It's reasonable to talk about burden of proof for claimed deceptions, but anyone into history should realize the study of history is ALL about decoding and reconciling different perspectives and deceptions.
I liked the army for the three years I was in, but I was not blind to its faults. Its command structure is much like a major corporation. Many studies have shown that professional soldiers and corporate executives have a lot in common.
My Lai’s official write up is probably the most notorious situation of US records not matching other accounts of the event.
@@Justanotherconsumer
Certainly the most publicized. I'm pretty sure there's a worse offender out there that we just don't know about. My dad, while stationed along the DMZ in Korea was part of a company charged with detonating some expired ordinance. The "boom" was MUCH larger than anticipated and broke windows in nearby civilian areas. General Ridgeway held a presser and insisted that the detonation was not initiated by US forces but rather an infiltration by a Nork sapper.
Look: Most military aviation fans and history buffs have a glamorous view of pilots, the Air Force, and US military in general.
It is anything but.
The Men who won WWII were chain smoking, whiskey drinking, sailor cursing sons of bitches. They were a good lot, and fought against insurmountable odds for what was right. But this does not change the fact military leadership was pathetic and wasteful. All of the big name "Greats" of both the Eastern and Western Theaters of Operation in WWII had giant blunders on their record, enourmous waste and loss of life by terrible planning and tactics. Constant blame toward the men in the field "not fighting hard enough" and gained well deserved poor public image. These "great" men spent the entire war and years after manufacturing vast quantities of propaganda and self-promotion materials.f propaganda and self-promotion materials.
I like this format of responding to comments
As for the leaning of the fuel for distance, Tony LeVier was already preaching that! He also helped pilots with compressibility issues! You cannot leave his name out of the discussion!
All I can say is thanks, sitting over here in the jungle and falling asleep listening to you everyday.Great work.
Absolutely I would listen through anything more you have to go through on this topic or comments from the debate. I wish after every debate both sides would go through and do this. Debates really don't have enough time to really flush out full context of topics. This is great.
And yes, typing fast. I agree the actual dove test on the fighters was a primary factor in Doolittle’s decision. Other factors were a far higher priority. Range, cost, single logistical support etc. AND? I’ve always said there is no “Best” fighter of WWII. Only ones that did things better than others. 😊 Cheers!
Love the chat answers Greg! You're really good at the off-the-cuff discussions and it really shows off your depth of knowledge. Hope to be your FO someday if you're not too close to retirement.
7 more years, so maybe..
Thanks for the engagement and dedication to your audience, Greg. Youre truly a class act.
Good stuff Greg. Some decades ago I'd read several books about the P-47, from it's debut to the final rendition. I became a huge fan of the plane. I do remember the author included some of the, what we see now as moronic, decisions by the higher ups that were governed by outdated thinking, ego, possibly behind closed door deals due to personal ambition. Your series on the P-47 confirmed and added to my love for the aircraft. Did the military lie, manipulate? When haven't they? Transparency is not something we see in military dealings or politics and media. There are times, particularly with the latter two where I assume they lie with every breath. Both the P-51 and the P-47 had slow starts in their rise. They both ended up as great warbirds. My bias is for the P-47.
Look at BuWeps refusal to believe American torpedos were failing to explode in 1942 into 1943. Why? Because the torpedo program was run by the officer who designed the trigger mechanisms and he KNEW it couldn’t malfunction. That is, until tests at Pearl proved him wrong as he witnessed the tests. That officer was quietly shuffled off to another division. Politics and egos influenced Army leadership as well. After all, they were human.
I enjoyed this video Greg, I didn't catch the debate, and seeing this I wish I had. As a Marine I would get 'debate ' going when I praised either P47 or P51 over the Corsair. Please keep this going.
You can still watch the debate, it's on this channel.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I have watched it now, but it's not the same as catching it live. I do love the way you cover topics in series. Both the P47 and FW190 series are on the top of my list. They're not the only ones, just the tops.
Thanks for doing this. I couldn't watch (?) the whole debate and you highlighted some excellent comments. One point about the USAAC /USAAF continued belief in the unescorted heavy bomber was the comparison between the B-17 and B-24 with other countries' bombers. They believed that U.S. heavy bombers armed with more than 10 heavy machineguns were much superior to the flammable Japanese and poorly armed German medium bombers which had only a handful of rifle caliber machineguns.
Remember that the Mosquito was designed as a bomber with no defensive armament.
It depended only on speed and agility, and there would not be so much of the latter on the way to target.
@@20chocsaday True and it was successful in that. But I was talking about the thinking of the USAAC "Bomber Mafia" that the US heavy bombers were much more heavily armed and tougher built that combined with their belief in the Norden Bombsight meant that they could fight their way through enemy fighters and accurately hit their target.
@@jamesrumizen4583 Yes, a variety of design theories. Don't forget the unexpectedly long range of the Japanese bombers compared to the German.
And they changed later from high level to very low level. Currently I think low visibility to radar is the need.
The Germans learned in the Spanish Civil war that bomber escort was necessary. Sadly, they only anticipated tactical air war with zone fighters and the idea of the drop tank languished until late 1940. Even so, the US should have learned from them at that time.
i feel like the bomber mafia was just 1 50 cal away from creating the ultimate flying fortress. too bad they gave up at the verge of success
Thanks for the run down and transparency in you analysis!
Dear Greg,
Commercial Pilot ASEL IA.
This was a degree two levels above a Phd seminar. Thank you for the work putting it together, and the incredible followup.
Yes please to the Lindbergh video, I always found that story intriguing and would be interested innhearing the truth about it !!
I think chiz resolves to "cheers" when said out loud. I think 'fire' in spoken or emoji form means excellent or appealing. 😃
😂😂yes, Buck Turgidson! I was guessing there was a turf battle over the entire drop tank issue both within the military and the manufacturers. We must not allow a Drop Tank Gap! 😂.
Thank You for the explanations- I missed the P38's perhaps flying around Berlin before the other birds!
Your logic is impeccable Mr Greg
This debate reminds me of the debates about getting a tank with a 90mm gun into the hands of US Armored forces much earlier in the war.
I hear you, but a drop tank is comically simple in comparative terms. Especially considering Republic already had one, and General Kenny had one made up in two days.
Greg, if you happen to see this, I did a follow on video to this video on my channel and tonight's livestream will be talking about the stuff we often leave off of our kit models including drop tanks which will no doubt lead to talking about your debate with Bill. Take care. Max
Thanks Max, I'll be there.
Hello Greg! I am your listener from Ukraine. I spent most of my life at General Aviation, as a designer and pilot. And I completely agree with your concept. I can only say that the P-47 was a unique aircraft and the pilots had to master a unique manner of using it in combat. And the Mustang is an ordinary fighter, a P-40 on steroids. It was easy to transfer pilots to it. So it became more widespread and the P-47 potentially provided great opportunities.
I agree, the P-51 is easier to fly, easier to train in, less expensive, has more range (P-51D vs P-47D), and a slightly better dogfighter. However none of that excuses the Bomber Mafia for the mistakes in 1942-1943.
Are you kidding? No one watch this? Okay, I might be sold on this. It is interesting to hear your responses even without documents. If you do more, I will watch.
I always like these videos especially when they talk about the P-47 to me it's a much maligned fighter. Knowing all this stuff about the P-47 now, and if I was in that period knowing all that stuff I will pick the P-47 out of all those planes and that's mainly because it could take a hit the it could lose cylinders is it still bring you home that is a plus plus.👍
I was there when a Braniff pilot wrapped his arms around an oily R-2800 sitting on a stand and told it he loved it.
He was flying a CV340 when the right engine blew a jug on takeoff and it took out the prop feathering line. They cutoff it's fuel and electricity but it kept windmilling generating ENORMOUS drag that those ships were never designed or tested for.
They declared an emergency and tower asked him to orbit. The crippled loaded ship COULD NOT be made to turn left. Instead they orbited clockwise and were forced to let the ship make a righthand 270 degree turn every so often in order to approach the main runway at KC Municipal. While both pilots stood on the left rudder and were trying to save everybody's life - the alcohol water injection fluid reservoir ran dry and the copilot automatically reached for the left engine's throttle to take it out of "takeoff power" setting. The pilot knocked hi hand away and said "Leave it" and the cope started to argue but thought better of it.
So a C-series R2800 ran at 2500 horsepower for several minutes "dry". When they landed my Dad told Dallas to send them up TWO new engines.
Hi, well the British wanted NAA to build P-40's, yes. However, there had been talks between the British and NAA of a new aircraft before the P-51, but nothing became of it and the Air Ministry was reluctant to go with a totally new aircraft at the time, and so requested the company build P-40 instead. after checking into the licensing, time to tool up and set up another assembly line and establish supplies of docs drawings, Etc., NAA claimed they could design an aircraft that would be better in every respect than P-40, have a flying example in 90 days and could enter production immediately, while still doing the necessary stuff to begin p-40 production. P-51 could not interfere with p-40 beginning production that's how dire the need was. when the 90 days was up NAA didn't quite have it finished, but there was enough done for the go ahead, and 117 days from the first thought the prototype was finished, with T-6 landing gear and other assorted parts so great was the rush. I would say they met their goal. what an amazing achievement considering the aircraft it became.
One aspect that I would love to hear your opinion on would be a comparison of the P-51 with the A6M. Both are light and somewhat fragile to gain extra speed, range and maneuverability. In contrast the P-47, F4F(more specifically the FM-1And 2), F6F, and F4U were in one sense nearly the same airplane. A huge P&W radial engine with different supercharging systems so that they are heavy and rugged. Note how well the A6M held up to the wildcat, hellcat and Corsair. (Yes the P-38 was there as well).
I really enjoyed this as well as the debate.
I really enjoyed the debate, listened live from Denmark, although I grew up very close to Halesworth. It might have worked better in person, three chairs on stage at an aircraft museum/society perhaps? (The sound would have been better and we wouldn't have lost Bill.)
You argued your case well Greg, as did Bill, who made some good points:
a) The specs & docs alone don't show the bigger picture, in that Hap Arnold's staff were trying to give other theatres the planes they needed as well. Only so much time, money and equipment, so many powerful people asking for it etc.
b) In 1943, the drop tanks would have only been useful for taking off, getting into formation and heading out to sea. A help for sure, but you'd assume the Luftwaffe was waiting for them 20-30 minutes away. As such, they'd still be on internal fuel from the Dutch/Belgian coast to the target and back home anyway. You've said it yourself when discussing naval aviation. Drop tanks or no, the range of the aircraft is dictated by the internal fuel capacity, especially in a combat zone. Bill did explain the safety concerns the Army had about using drop tanks.
This last point is my own, but everything is easier with hindsight. The Jug's first flight was only 39 years after the Wright brothers got airborne in a "kite" made out of cloth and wood. It's no surprise that a cumbersome and bureaucratic Army made mistakes trying to develop doctrine. As soon as they'd figured out a plan of how to use this new weapon, the extreme pace of aviation's technological development during that period would have made those plans obsolete before the ink was dry!
Considering that many generals of that time were trained on horseback as cavalry officers, Patton being a good example, I'm prepared to cut Hap Arnold and his staff some slack for not getting everything right. :)
You did an amazing job proving your point Greg and I wish more people today would have this much interest in this subject.
Hey Greg, great video really appreciate the efforts you have taken to know and appreciate your community. Alongside your research and presentation skills I feel it is one of the greatest strengths you have as a producer of knowledge. Hope you decide to continue with these (especially if they are relatively quick and easy) as others have said it may help to avoid or not read off the comments that are fluff.
Keep up the great work.
Greg, near the end of one of your P-47 videos you talked about the P-47 in service of the Republic of China after WW2. I thought that was interesting and was new to me. Would you please consider expanding on that story?
Yes, that was very interesting.
Nice debate I think BIll did not understand the Cause to Effect issue and held to the "party line" that "this is what happened therefore it is what had to happen" an nearly tautological argument
Sorry missed the debate and have just watched. I think both you and Bill should have examined one other point. Maybe more a case of Hanlon’s Razor and ineptitude of behalf of Arnold and Eaker.
Arnold and Eaker didn’t bother with Escort Fighters, because they felt they didn’t need to. They were content with bombing France. Their hands were forced at the Casablanca Conference. January 24th 1943.
The British while not the big partner were still the senior more experienced partner. Churchill on January 4, 1943, sent a message to his secretary of state for air in which he wrote pointedly, “I note that the Americans have not yet succeeded in dropping a single bomb on Germany.”
Because of this General H Arnold ordered General Eaker to the Casablanca Conference. On Arriving Eaker was informed that Churchill was on the verge of convincing Roosevelt to switch the American bombing effort away from daylight raiding and into joining with the RAF in their night bombing missions over Germany.
This would effectively mean the American Eighth would be subordinate to British Bomber Command. Eaker worked fast and wrote an elegant Memo for Churchill that could be the basis for a speech. “If the RAF continues night bombing and we bomb by day, we shall bomb them round the clock and the devil shall get no rest.” The erudite Churchill, delighting in this sentence, was won over and ceased his opposition to American daylight bombing.
From this point on the Americans were forced into something they were not trained, ready or equipped to do. Bombing Germany in broad daylight against the world’s best fighter pilots.
I enjoyed the chat, good work! Maybe we can resolve the issue by recreating the flight with vintage equipment! My Dad entered the war late in the game as a replacement pilot and flew ten missions before the war ended (he was a flight instructor state-side and volunteered for combat). He ended up as a P-47 pilot in the 56th fighter group as a wingman for guys like Mike Galdych and Dave Schilling. One factor that may have been overlooked was the P-47 maintenance record. At one point after Dad had arrived to the 56th, he was cross-trained on the P-51. From conversations, I believe his training was that it was due to problems with the P-47, even late in the game. Please correct me if I’m wrong, however, I believe the P-47’s were always assembled from shipping crates and were prone to assembly problems. He also mentioned an issue he encountered where the 56th engines had the wrong oil in service (break-in oil was left in the engine too long and not switched out after a break-in period, resulting in engine failures). On one mission (out of ten) he had to turn back due to an oil leak with the engine. I remember reading about the DC-3, comparing turbo-prop conversions with radial engines, they said to be prepared to land with one engine, as the original radial engines will be prone to failure. So there may have been a reliability issue, perceived or otherwise, that factored in the minds of the Eight Army Air Force top brass; they then stuck to what was a perceived and proven strategy with the plane: short and mid-range bomber support and ground support fighter-bomber; leave the long-distance stuff to the more “modern” in-line 12 cylinder Merlins and Packards.
Wow, your dad flew with Galdych, quite impressive. I think your dad was probably flying the P-47Ms which did have problems due to shipping issues.
I was embarrassed for Bill. The echo chamber in WW2aircraft has been a little quiet since this event....a lot less snark.
That unfair thing to say. Bill also has some good points
@@vladimirpecherskiy1910 what's unfair is all the crap they posted about Greg on the forum
@@airplanes42 I do not know what "they" post at forum, but Bill seems to be honest man and his position not really that different.
Thank you so much for your videos. I agree with your viewpoints. I volunteered at a ww2 Aviation Museum that has a P47D. Came across several manuals and it converted me from the P51. Such an underrated aircraft. I used to believe the narrative that only P51s operated from Iwo Jima from the news reels and documentaries. Until I saw a pictures of the airbase on iwo jima. There were P51s, P47s, P61s and B29s that were stationed there to help locate downed aircrew until a ship or aircraft can pick them up. Sorry rambling. I think it is really important that we look beyond the common history knowledge.
I enjoyed listening to this follow up. I agree with another comment I saw on here mentioning that it would be better to focus mostly on questions that weren't able to be answered live during the debate.
Enjoyed the follow up Greg and would watch if you do more sir. Agree on skip the not relevant comments. Maybe just make a global comment at the beginning and end acknowledging and thinking everybody for them. A scholar and a gentleman sir.
Thanks, and that's exactly what I'll do.
This is a great follow up video and i enjoyed it
Hello GREG'S AIRPLANES.... Did you ever think that maybe the ranges that were reported were taken out of context.
Here me out.... i saw this range chart showing the combat radius of the P47, P38 and P51 and i think this is where the idea that this was the max flight ranges of these planes. But i think this chart was used as a guide on where each plane was going to do the hand off of the bombers.
Let say some one in the air force figured out the best way to use those fighter escorts in the best effective manner.
1. The P47 cost twice as much as one P51, is very robust and is a great ground attack craft. So set the flight radius for all P47 to not be more then 300 miles.
So they can escort the bombers so far before handing them off to the P38's. Then the P47 can flight back to base and on the way home take out some tanks, trains, boats, and trucks.
2. So now the P38 has taken over from the p47. The P38 cost also twice as much as a P51. The P38 can fly faster and higher then any German fighter, so the P38 can protect the bombers from attack up high and can see any attack that comes from below. And the P38 can Zoom and boom on any German fighter that gets too close. Then the P38 hands off the bombers to the P51. P38's go home refuel and get back into position to escort the bombers back home.
3. The P51 is cheap, you can get two instead of one P38 or P47. So for the same money you have twice as many P51 protecting the bombers when they enter into Germany, were the the German defense would be most concentrated.
So when i was looking at that old flight radius for all those fighters it made sense, that this would be the combat radius for the bomber missions they were going to fly and not the exact flight time of each fighter.
While the P-51 cost less you also have factor in pilots and pilot training.
Stanley Baldwin: "The bomber will always get through." 1932. Awesome comments and patience, Greg. You are the man.
That was the Trenchard doctrine which permeated Cranwell and even the USAAC between the wars. Trenchard should have been binned in the '20s for his WWI cannon fodder mentality.
Thanks for putting in this extra effort.
Hi Greg I love your aviation youtube videos, I would like to hear your response to some more of the questions and comments on the P47 debate. My Impression is that Bill was saying there was no suitable drop tanks for the P47 in 1943 whereas you were saying there could have been, there should have been and some had been used without USAAF official approval.
My Understanding is that the influence of the idea that the bomber could always get through unescorted was never absolute even at the beginning of the USAAF operations in Europe. The first USAAF bombing mission in europe was against railroad marshalling yards in France, and it was escorted by Spitfires. Even the "Bomber Mafia" could see that a mission by so few B17s would get destroyed if it wasnt escorted
Adolf Galland was in charge of German fighter operations later in the war. My understanding of his tactics is that he had an obsession with building up as many fighters as possible and then having massive air battles to defeat large bomber formations in a simlar fasion to the big wing advocated by some British officers
A thoroughly enjoyable follow on. Thanks Greg.
As for John Wayne. Maybe everything was simpler? I have seen that some of the Razorbacks were equipped with a second cabin in a gargrot to take new pilots on their first flights. Moreover, in reality it was tiny and the smallest pilots were chosen there.
Oh, btw, I retire in 2 years…good lord willing. 😅. A-320/321 captain…..but I used to fly real planes. 😂
2 points. I believe the bomber mafia thought that if they reached the required number of aircraft per mission, that they would be able to be "self escorting." And if Eaker thought fighters were not needed, why was the 8th fighter command policy before Doolittle arrived to "stay with the bombers."?
1. The bomber mafia did believe that a large enough formation would be more able to self escort. Of course this was false.
2. By 1942 the "fighters were not needed" idea was dying out, it was replaced by the idea that fighters were beneficial. It wasn't until late 1942 that it was clear to the bomber mafia that fighters were essential.
Absolutely, that's what I find ironic...they went from "we don't need them" to "they must stay with the bombers",
Thanks for doing this. Certainly some things to consider for the next of these.
Generally, range, is dependent on how much fuel you carry. In WW2 for fighters...eventually it came to drop tanks. I carried two drop tanks in my aircraft that gave me about 1.3 hours more flight time. While significant, it robed me of my primary armament. Note, I did not say I was a WW2 aviator.
I enjoyed the stream of consciousness treatment of the comments and will certainly watch any future videos you post regarding the debate and\or it's comments.
My dad drove a landing gear through the wing of a Ryan trainer. They only give you one of those..
Hi Greg. Just a quick note regarding my channel: I stopped producing combat flight sim content on my YT channel. Those videos have been archived to my Playeur channel for anyone who wants to see those. My YT channel is now GA content only. Was a controversial move, but I had my reasons.
When it comes to DCS; I don't have as much time now for flight sims, however, the Cold War era has been of more interest to me in DCS. I have flown on the Enigma Cold War server as well as a few others, mostly in the F-5. Not saying I'll never do WWII DCS, I just haven't had that itch.
Thanks Central.
Oh, one more! Yes, and it’s too bad the Army fighters, P-38, 40, 47, 51, the drop tanks all fed the engines. The only return yes is that ‘vapor vent return.” That is excess from the carburetor. It happens regardless drop tanks or not. And you have to burn off fuel from the one tank that receives from the vapor vent return. So take a P-51, that’s the left tank. You have to take off on that left tank to provide space. Otherwise you will pump fuel overboard via the tank vent. Now, later int he Hellcat and F4U the drops actually directly filled the internal fuel, which kept you topped off if you dropped the tanks. So, Vapor vent return a few gallons per hour generally excess from the carburetor to the return tank.
The drop tanks were added after by modification so some compromises were made. The P-38s were starting to be modified in April 1942.
In the P-47 that vapor return line returns as much a 10 gallons per hour to the main tank.
3:04
Max is an active Airbus 310 Captain.
The poet says it - "make mine a Jugg" - Johnson did it right, Ward Carroll, Yourself and Myself all love the P-47? I'm a songwriter and I can't help putting the poem to an excellent groove but goldarnitt, I have a nine-words-or-less-rule and I aim to find the kernel of the Jug. it's built by Thor, apparently, no wonder they are so expensive. I will find out why I love the Jugg.
On the date is question about the P-38 over Berlin the bombing was called off but the 55th FG continued to Berlin.
Hey I made the chat log! thanks for the fun Video Greg!
Always interested to watch your videos!
As time allows, Greg, please do another video to answer these many comments. Thank you!
Buck Turgidson, yes
Hey I wanted to pass along from the quadrant signal book P47 in action it seems to me I remember reading from that way back when teething problems from the bees when they went to Europe they were only plumbed for the ferry tank on the center line there was no pressurization of the fuel system so the fuel would deliver consistently and there was something about the pressurizing the spark plug cabling it would short out at high altitudes read by nose about these things post up please thanks love your videos Greg you're doing awesome and I really appreciate your guests joining up too
I thoroughly enjoyed that debate. And I feel that you proved your point and Bill just still does not want to accept it. He made his points and I appreciate his conviction. But you made your case.
Aside, from the technical lost of communications, I liked the debate. I think some opposing Greg’s P47 range argument, tried to turn the debate into which was the Better Escort Fighter, P-51 vs P-47. Greg’s position clearly was the P-47 (1943 variants) could do long-range escorting.
That's exactly right, this wasn't a "which is better P-47 or P-51" debate. That's another subject entirely.
Wright-Pat engineers were almost as responsible as the bomber mafia regarding the drop tank/fighter range issue
Although beyond the scope of this discussion, in reference to the philosophy of the so-called "bomber mafia", once the war was over it was discovered that "little more than 20% of German industrial plant had been destroyed." ("POSTWAR: A history of Europe Since 1945" by Tony Judt). This isn't an indictment of the proponents of this philosophy. No one had ever attempted large scale strategic bombing before.
I suggest you haven't really found out how far a -47 can fly unrefueled until you get Colonel Lindbergh, US Army Air Corp to to find out.
So it's going to remain a mystery. But being long-familiar with engines I can say with certainty that the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption that he got from the turbocharged P-38 should assumed to be matchable by the turbocharged -47. The reason turbocharged engines can exceed naturally aspirated (and FAR exceed crank-driven supercharged engines) is the same reason turbocharged diesels are more frugal than NA ones: "Scavenging otherwise wasted energy from the exhaust to raise manifold pressure literally changes the Otto Cycle's intake stoke from a power-consuming stroke to a power-producing stroke."
Every once in a while, it would seem that Bill's argument was strong until your rebuttals. Eventually, it sounded more like you pulled Bill away from the blame of Republic and toward recognizing that the drop tank issue was at least a problem coming from bureaucratic debate.
That, to me, is a win.
Thank you.
History doesn’t repeat but it does rhyme and all that good stuff. The difference between the 5th and 8th air armies I think spoke quite well to capping off your point. As I see a few people commenting this is a major point of interest for understanding the past which tends to lead us to how we approach future. Understanding the truth will hopefully lead to a more efficient and effective deterrent even though we are so far down the line that there’s no apples to apples. Except the pace of changing technology, doctrines may not face contact with the enemy. Flexibility & the able to lose some temporary face seems like it is a key to saving lives winning wars. Or better yet having such a solid deterrent that the enemy decides the cost isn’t worth it. As an annex i do differentiate between sabre rattling and the kind of cold eye look at the heroic myth we have build up around the real honest heroism that took place.
I agree, very nice job Greg. I would at least cherry pick the best questions for one more video if you are willing.
In his book, "Washington Goes To War" David Brinkley paints a picture of the time, when bureaucratic control of all things began. The sardonic humor he sprinkles throughout brings the story to life. They set up barracks on the Mall to house all the typist needed to man the typewriters needed to transition the nation into a wartime production machine, the typists being young women. Heaven for the fewer men available.
This was not a war of choice, we had to win, everyone sacrificed, some sacrificed all. But there were ration programs for rubber, meat, fuel, ect. ect. as typewriter and automobile, pinball and sewing machine producers were turned to guns and tanks.
We started out with Stearman biplanes for trainers, and ended up with super-props and atom bombs. Yes the B-29 was conceived in 1940? but alot of men died just to get it operational. My dad was training as Navigator, flight engineer, and gunner on a B-29 when the war ended - he was out in like a two weeks iirc. His take on the AAF and the Army was more in line with Greg. He was a "Citizen Soldier" not a career military man. Big difference. He was most critical of Gen. MacArthur, but also the "Top Brass" broadly. Mom was a Navy Nurse at Norfolk Navel Hospital when the wounded were brought back home, and she shared the same attitude, and neither was excited about my decision to enlist in the Marines, though as I look back at it, He appreciated not having to fund college for me as well as my sister. I got GI Bill bennies for college, when I figured out what I wanted to go there for. (lots of pretty girls)
I'm glad they never lived to see what has become of America, now a unipolar empire in danger of collapse as all empires collapse. This debate for me is about more than just the range of the P-47. It is primarily about the bureaucratic managerial centralized corporate controlled government. The world is too complex to understand let alone "manage" from the top -- you have to have decision making closer to the ground, at a smaller scale where at least existing solutions can be implemented and critiqued by people who "Can Do" and who _will_ do. That used to the genius of America. Before Washington DC went to war.
Salute to Bill for sticking to his guns, my kind of guy. Have a good one.
Why was it so hard for bombers to self escort? It seems like a group of air planes covered in guns should be able to dispatch some fighter planes, did bomber gunners lack training? were the guns in the bombers not powerful enough? Were enemy aircraft more armoured in the front making them hard to shoot down? Were bombers just too large of a target and easy to hit? I'm sure its a combination but I really would have thought they would have been able to shoot down at least an enemy aircraft for each bomber lost to enemy fighters? Or was it about a 1:1 ratio but because there are so many people in a bomber (10 ish crew? vs 1 in the fighter) the personnel losses were too high?
At best the exchange rate was 1:1, but that's 1 four engine bomber with 10 men for a single engine fighter and the pilot was often OK and flew again.
The fighter pilot can move his aircraft into the most advantageous position to shoot accurately. The gunner in a bomber has to try to hit the fighter coming at the angle of the fighter's choosing and has to make difficult deflection shots. Most of the advantage is with the fighter
Thanks Greg
Thank you for this video. Your quick comment by comment response is helpful and interesting. I am not sure I would want to listen to it if it were 5 times longer. Regarding the subject, there are 3 sides to every story: yours, mine, and the truth. Having heard both sides, I think yours is closer to the truth.
I am guessing there was an internal battle over drop tanks within the military industrial complex aka a ‘drop tank war”. (We must not allow a drop tank gap). 😂
Max gets it! Thanks Max.
Yea I think this video is great. You don’t have to do this but it speaks well of you to do it and I enjoyed it. I really wanted to hear your answers.
The debate was great in spite of technical issues.
John Wayne may have flown the P-47, cool... "Those aren't bullet holes, they're termite holes."
Really, I don't have much to add, the U.S. army air-core admits that the P-38 was first to go deep into Germany, the range question seems to be answered already. I was about to bring Limburg up, but since it was covered no need.
I guess I can kind of understand the mind fog the bomber mafia was in, they look at their big bombers bristling with guns and think, "how can a little fighter shoot that down", especially in tight formation of 50 to a 100 or more.
Good video!
I enjoyed this post game round up. I am shocked by what you say about poor generalship. In their defense I would suggest they were obsessed with the bombing accuracy, tonnage and damage and probably considered the casualties secondarily IN the BEGINNING.
Thanks Greg.
It's one of those things where we can learn things from any exposure to information and discussions about it's accuracy.
You not having infinite time and energy - I'll choose to let you choose what you spend the time and energy you do have on.
A few things.
Doolittle could more be described as an Air Power Advocate. There certainly were reasons for pushing for bombers - just not to the exclusion of everything else. I think anyone that took a B-25 off a carrier - was more interested in what was practical and could really be done - than someone who was going to adamantly adhere to theory. And yes - Eisenhower threatened to relieve him of his command if he didn't stop flying missions. He was told something like - he could be a fighter pilot or a General - but not both.
As to the P-51 - look at the aircraft model numbers ... P-38, P-47 ...
The P-51's were a later war aircraft - later than the 38's and 47's - and benefited from lessons learned with earlier aircraft - plus good thinking by NA. One advantage here that it has over the '38's was that it had more ergonomic flight controls than the '38. There's a whole thing that has been commented on about all the things a pilot had to do in a '38 to transition from Cruise to Combat - and - these had to be done in a specific order. The Controls for the '51 were well laid out and in fact combined some of these functions - so that at one stage in the process the pilot only had to do one thing - instead of two.
The '38 was an outstanding aircraft that could do tremendous things - in the hands of an experienced pilot - but the guys being mass produced by AF flight training - were not experienced pilots. So - *_YES_* the '51 was much easier for these guys to fly - and it wasn't a multi engined aircraft.
I've read a lot of stuff on the '38 but not so much on the '47 so I just don't know about the ease of use of it's controls.
And - of course - the '51's were cheaper. Good Aircraft that costs less. They loved that.
Whenever someone is stupid enough to say something is _The Best(!!!!)_ my response is - _"The best at what?_ One thing about the '51's as escort fighters - was that their engines were tuned for that.
About '51's on Carriers - they actually did try that out. They put a Tail Hook on a '51 and gave it a try. Then - they stopped the test because the '51 was just to fragile and they were afraid of killing someone. Taking off from an Airfield - it was fine. Landing on a carrier - no. There's a reason they talk about _The Grumman Iron Works_ ....
My first night on a Carrier - I was woken up by this *_KAAAAABLAAANNNNGGGG!!!!_* . I wondered if a plane had crashed but no one was making concerned noises. Then I heard it again ... and again ... and again ... and I realized it was just the normal sound landing an Aircraft made and went back to sleep. After a while - I didn't even notice.
The British tried modifying Spitfires into Seafires ... they flew great ... but they had horrible operational losses. The British got a lot of use out of them though.
One thing about all those Lend Lease American Carrier Aircraft - _LEND LEASE_ - was not free. The US would LEND them to the British for the Duration of the War - but - if they wanted to keep them after the war - they had to pay for them. The Americans didn't actually want them back though - so - a lot of them were simply pushed off the deck into the sea. So - Seafires it was ...
I've seen pictures somewhere of P-38's in the Philippines being bull dozed into a canyon ...
.
Could it be that the decision was made on which aircraft was more fuel-efficient? P51 was 3.5 to 5.6 mpg vs P47 was 2.2 to 4.7 mpg. Difficult to get exact numbers because the Brit's study used Imperial gallons vs US gallons - knots at altitude. A simplistic decision was made based on inaccurate data. P47N proved it's abilities
Sure, fuel efficiency helped, but that's no excuse for not escorting all the way to the target in 1943.
10:45 tank destroyers were neither illogical nor instead of better tanks nor ineffective. The chieftain has several good videos on us and German tank destroyer doctrine(which are quite similar) and also on the subject that the Sherman didn’t not get the 76mm because of tank destroyers but rather that the 75mm was used for Tds and tanks first and it was good for anti tank but then it takes times to upgrade the tank to a 76mm when it became necessary.
I thought you already settled the debate with the fantastic series you did on the P-47
Thanks.
Great video
I find it very interesting.
Please can you make a video on the YB40?
Especially comparing performance to a stock 17.
I've seen Connies, Sabers, B-29s, a B-17 in olive, perfect restoration, 500 feet over Hollywood, whatever was flying low that freaky day. Santa Monica airport had tons of warbirds. One good design and 20 years of variations - you know the invisible plane is in E.T. back-engineering under El Segundo (true) I'm old but eff me the Sabre says all jets, to me. I love the 262, I love the MiG-15, the F-86 says to anybody with eyes "look at these guns, huh?". The Russian is Mega B.A. but the American is kicking back because he drives and he knows what he drives and a little fear creeps in, that old superstition , don't get cocky, boy. Do you want to know the deep sadness of the West Coast 1950s? Watching prop planes turn into passenger jets. Hey remember when there was a new airplane design delivered every 33 days? Because of a stupid had-to-do-it war. The military flies by now and then and the Earth literally trembles and it ain't LAX a zillion years ago. Why the Jugg? Maybe a P-47 flyover would jug my memory. I don't care, after 1955...I saw Corsairs, in the air...that very year...(cocktail piano jazz)...P-51s. Lots of P-51s a hundred years later I remember...omg...that's my list. I have never seen a P-47 in real life. I have literally met two Beatles and this haunts me. You get it.
Since I was 3 years old I absorbed everything I could about all fighter planes, since World War I! Out of all the planes that I researched and really got into the F-16 Fighting Falcon and the P-47 Thunderbolt came to light! The F-16 hands down best dog fighter in a visual scenario. Yes the P-47 has some drawbacks but it's incredible survivability and numbing Mach number in the dive The Jug is going to take a massive run at you and if you survive you need to count your chickens! Probably the best fighter ever produced with a radial engine! Everybody loves the b-51 because of all the military's Promotional and media endorsements but if I was a exceptionally trained pilot in my platform I would take a P-47 every time! If you learned how to embrace the p-47s attributes and relegated them to tactics you would always be the aggressor and come out on top! Let's face it a plane that is so rugged and could be pushed Beyond it's Mach number and come out on top every time, word!..............
Greg could you consider short video on the very meticulous construction of the Japanese 0 I keep bumping into a few videos of people building restoring recovering whatever with these aircraft and they just seem to be incredibly well made for their purpose
I must commend you ! How you kept your cool is a mystery to me? The debate process should only be reserved for experts not fanboys ! Keep the facts coming ! I am pretty sure which Presidential candidate he is rooting for !!! LMAO ! FACTS ARE FACTS...EVEN WHEN YOU DON'T LIKE THEM !